Wright County Board Minutes

The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Heeter, Sawatzke, Mattson, Russek and Eichelberg present.

Eichelberg moved to approve the minutes of 7-10-07 as presented, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.

Petitions were accepted to the Agenda as follows: Consent Agenda Item #A5, “Authorize Signatures On Contract With Sheriff Supervisory Unit” (Norman). Heeter moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Eichelberg, carried unanimously.

Eichelberg moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, seconded by Heeter. Heeter inquired when County Board Meetings are aired on cable television. Susan Backes, Administrative/Confidential Secretary, said meetings are aired on Thursdays at 8:00 P.M. and Fridays at 8:00 A.M. Sawatzke inquired whether the County signed an annual agreement with Charter. The response was this has not been done. Sawatzke referenced page 3 of the document reflecting the Program Submission Requirements relating to the length of programs. Backes contacted Charter Communications and received confirmation that the County would not be required to meet these requirements. The motion to approve the Consent Agenda carried 5-0:

A. ADMINISTRATION

1. Performance Appraisals: S. Pedersen, Aud./Treas.

2. Approve Public Access Television User Agreement With Charter Communications.

Cliff Buikema, KKE Architects, presented discussion on an Addendum to Bid Package #2 for the Jail/LEC project which would result in the request to cancel the bid opening scheduled for today at 2:00 P.M. He apologized for not bringing this forth at the last Owner’s Committee Meeting. As it was the first Owner’s Committee meeting he attended and the item was not on the Agenda, he did not bring forth the issue. Buikema requested that KKE be scheduled on the Owner’s Committee Agenda every other week. Either Buikema or Lindemann would be present to report on items. Project meetings would be held on site those same days prior to the Owner’s Committee Meeting, so a report on any outstanding issues could be provided. With regard to the Addendum, Buikema stated there are three parts to obtaining good bids: 1) The bid document is thorough and clear; 2) There is competition; and 3) There is adequate time to review drawings. All three of these items were discussed as part of the decision to postpone the bids for a week. The project is fast paced. Building, bidding and design are all occurring at the same time. The mechanical engineers are designing at the same time that precast and concrete work is being designed. Those items relate to one another. They are in the process of finalizing the ductwork sizing and concrete is out for bids. Buikema felt the changes needed to be made. To do so in the bid process would not impact cost; to do so later would result in a change order. They are trying to identify those situations and through the Addendum, they have been able to achieve most of that coordination. The Addendum includes structural drawings reflecting the openings and footings which need adjustments. With these changes, he felt more time should be provided for review by bidders.

Buikema said A&P wanted Bid Package #2 to be bid as one package for the Precast Cell Package and the Detention Equipment Package. The advantage was there would be one point of responsibility. However, the size of the bid package impacted bonding capacity of bidders. It was decided after last week’s Owner’s Committee Meeting that the two packages would be split. With providing more time, they have now had interest from about six potential equipment contractors. There are two potential bidders on the Precast Cell Package. There were three bidders but the third could not meet schedule requirements. The problem being encountered is that the Federal Government in California has purchased precast cells ahead of time which has changed the market conditions. This is the reason it will be extended. The precast cells would be bid on July 24th and the detention equipment on July 31st. Martin said they would push the award of the contracts out five days and they would hope to make that time up elsewhere. Mattson asked for a guarantee that there will be no further delays. Buikema said he could not guarantee that there will be no further delays. They are making an intense effort to assure this does not happen. The advantage of this fast-track process is that it saves time and money in terms of escalation costs. The disadvantage is that the building is being designed during construction. There are risks that something may not be built correctly, but hopefully it is minor.

Mattson questioned only having 1-2 bidders on the precast cell package. Martin said that only four contractors provide this type of work. The industry is being affected by the Federal Government in California purchasing cells ahead of time. This is affecting everything, even precast hardware. Contractors are reaching bonding capacity and are unable to bid additional work. The other bid categories will have competitive bids. The bid documents reflect delivery dates which will stay the same. Sawatzke said there then should be no change in schedule. Martin said this affects footings and foundations. If the contracts are not approved in time, they are delayed. Once the bids are opened, if they are unable to go through and qualify them by Thursday (in order to meet the deadline for the next Board Meeting), the recommendation will be delayed an additional week. The footings will receive priority. Richard Norman, County Coordinator, referenced the week loss in the opening of Bid Package 2 and questioned whether the plan date for Bid Package 3 could be moved up. Martin responded that the Packages do not affect one another. By moving up Bid Package 3, the items would just be delivered earlier, at a time when they are not ready. Martin did not view the five days as a large issue, as long as she can meet with all the bidders and qualify them. Heeter moved to cancel the scheduled Bid Opening for Phase II, Jail/LEC Project, scheduled for 2:00 P.M. today and to reschedule the Bid Opening for Precast Cells to 7-24-07 at 2:00 P.M. and to reschedule the Bid Opening for the Detention Equipment to 7-31-07 at 2:00 P.M. The motion was seconded by Eichelberg. Mattson requested that the Board be made aware of any other issues which arise. The motion carried 5-0.

Heeter moved to cancel the Owner’s Committee Meeting scheduled for 1:00 P.M. today as there are no issues to be discussed. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried unanimously.

An Owner’s Committee Meeting was held on 7-10-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, Heeter moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0:

COMMISSIONING RFP. Torfin stated that at the 2-13-07 Board Meeting, discussion occurred on the need for building commissioning for the Jail/LEC. At that meeting, Torfin was directed to get an RFP. Torfin presented the RFP to the Committee and stated that it has been sent out to commissioning firms. Martin noted proposals for commissioning services are due by 7-20-07 to Torfin and the County will need to select a Commissioning Authority by 8-01-07. Heeter asked how long the RFP has been made public. Torfin stated that the RFP was initiated on 6-18-07 and received by the County on approximately 6-29-07. Martin stated that the following contractors have a copy of the RFP: Newmech, Karges  Faulconbridge, Willen Inc., and Sebesta Blomberg. Sawatzke referred to the Board Minutes from 3-13-07 by stating that the Board had debated as to which components of the project would be covered by a Commissioning Agent and whether the services were needed. Sawatzke specifically noted the 3-13-07 Board Minutes, Page 8, 12th line of first paragraph, “Heeter felt it would be easier if KKE understood what was needed for commissioning, if they would advise the County and charge accordingly instead of the County Board trying to determine how to proceed. Lindemann stated they would research this issue and provide the County with the information”. Sawatzke articulated his confusion as to why the RFP has been distributed prior to receiving clarification or advice from KKE. Norman expressed that he had hoped that today’s Committee Meeting would answer the basic question of what is/is not covered in the architect’s contract and what functions of commissioning they would be performing. Torfin stated that funding for commissioning is not allocated in the proposed construction and design costs. Martin noted that A&P is carrying $160,000 for special inspections/testing which include inspections to certify masonry, materials, soils, fireproofing, etc. Braun Intertec will be performing the special inspections for $104,000, which is less than the budgeted amount. Martin stated that typically the inspection of the smoke system is carried in the mechanical number. Sawatzke questioned whether it was a redundancy to hire a commissioning agent when the architect’s engineer was paid to design an effective system, and the contractors installing the system should be held accountable for the proper installation of the system. Sawatzke expressed his concern for fingerpointing if the system fails and questioned whether commissioning should be included within the architect’s scope of work. Buikema referred to the discussion on this topic at the 3-13-07 Board Meeting during the Design Development Report Presentation by KKE and A&P. Buikema stated that commissioning is a relatively new field due to mechanical systems that have become more complex due to the need for energy savings. Mechanical, HVAC and electrical systems now have sensors that coordinate with computers maintaining a system. KKE designs the system and a collection of contractors build the system: plumbing, sheet metal, mechanical, electrical, etc. A commissioning agent verifies that each of the sensors, connection points, and the system, is doing what it was designed to do. A commissioning agent would perform independent, detailed testing and document every component of the system. Buikema added that commissioning is a quality control function; reducing the possibility that there will be construction mistakes. State Code requires special inspections for concrete strength, steel, and soil inspections which Braun Intertech will perform. Buikema clarified that KKE does not perform tests, and it is not included in their contract. KKE performs general “periodic inspections”. KKE has engineers that can provide commissioning services as an added fee but sometimes it is best to have an outside commissioning agent. Sawatzke asked if a commissioning agent should be involved in the early design stages. Buikema explained that the County can choose to have a commissioning agent comment on the system. Norman asked if the RFP calls for the commissioning agent to be involved in the design stage. Torfin stated that the RFP calls for the agent to be involved immediately. Torfin stated that the mechanical specifications will be bid in August. Buikema stated that the mechanicals are 90% drawn. Heeter asked if Scott County hired a commissioning agent. Martin stated that both Scott and Freeborn counties hired commissioning agents. Torfin added that Scott County hired commissioning for their life safety systems as part of their contract with their architect as part of special inspections. Following project completion, Scott County had so many problems with their mechanical system they hired a commissioning agent to do additional commissioning of the entire mechanical system on a separate contract. Torfin explained that this RFP would request proposals for commissioning of the mechanical, life safety (smoke system if installed), HVAC, geo-thermal heating systems, all the plumbing and electrical. The commissioning will not include the security electronics as there is only one contractor that supplies and installs this equipment. The contractor will be asked to validate their system. Martin proposed using the additional monies available from the special inspections budget item for commissioning. Sawatzke questioned Lindeman’s comment from the 3-13-07 Board Minutes, Page 7, 16th line of the last paragraph, “It was clarified that commissioning is included in the A&P figures for fire and life safety requirements, as they cannot be turned on until they are certified by an official. Lindemann was certain that smoke management, the pre-action sprinkler, and enunciation were included in the base construction bid.” Buikema stated that the fire alarm system is normally validated by the fire alarm contractor, however a commissioning agent would test the fire alarm’s surrounding environment and how it interacts with the system. Martin confirmed that the commissioning of the fire and life safety (horns and strobes) is included as part of the contract for the fire and life safety contractor. Buikema noted that the engineers of KKE has been working with the Code Officials at the State who have raised the possibility that due to the design, a smoke control management system may not be needed, therefore a special inspection will not be needed. Sawatzke asked if the commissioning was a project requirement or an option. Buikema stated that commissioning is an option. If the County determined not to hire a commissioning agent, and the mechanical system failed, then the problem would not be found out until following project completion. Norman asked if there are any bonding requirements of the commissioning agent. Martin stated no. Discussion continued as to what recourse the County would have once it has hired a commissioning agent, only to find that the system fails following project completion. Martin stated that this would fall under the warranty, and the warranty period is dependent on the piece of equipment. Martin informed the Committee that she will be collecting warranties for every piece of equipment and from the contractors. Buikema explained that KKE is often involved with problems that occur after project completion. KKE engineers will go out and survey the problem and if the problem can be identified, then the contractor is called to come back out. Buikema stated that KKE does not typically charge for that service. Sawatzke questioned what the proposed cost is expected to be for commissioning services. Torfin stated that he thought $100,000. Heeter asked for confirmation whether this was included in the project budget. Martin stated that a commissioning agent was never discussed and was not included in the project budget. Buikema proposed that the County take advantage of the excess in the special inspections/testing budget line item to be used for commissioning services. Debate ensued as to whether the RFP proposals would be itemized, allowing the County to “pick and choose” the critical components for commissioning in order to avoid a $100,000 extra cost. Hayes stated that commissioning services may appear to be a redundancy, however commissioning has the nature of an insurance policy. Buikema agreed with Hayes by stating that the County can hope that their contractors are qualified, however the County selects the low bidder, not necessarily the most skilled contractor. Martin added that A&P does qualify the bidding contractors prior to making a recommendation to the County Board. Sawatzke proposed bringing in the commissioning agents once the proposals have been received and reviewed to explain why the County should add commissioning to the project. Sawatzke stated that it should be the job of the commissioning agent to convince the Board to hire them for commissioning. Heeter demonstrated support of Sawatzke’s statement by stating that there is a learning curve in regard to this topic, and would prefer to receive more information prior to making a recommendation to the County Board. Sawatzke asked if the commissioning would be part of the project construction costs that would impact what A&P would receive. Martin stated that she would confer with Mark Liska as to whether commissioning would fall under construction costs or under professional fees. Martin summarized that the bids are due 7-20-07 and proposed that the Committee review the proposals at the Owner’s Committee Meeting on 7-24-07. Martin explained that the Committee would have a week to discuss the proposals and make a determination prior to 8-01-07. Sawatzke asked if the proposals would likely be short or if they would be complex and lengthy. Martin stated that the proposals most likely would be lengthy because the commissioning firms will be required to list their history, qualifications, produce a copy of their standard insurance certificate, and list hourly wage rates. Sawatzke asked if the project is on schedule and whether there were any change orders. Torfin provided a schedule update by stating that the utilities were mobilized on 7-09-07. Sanitary piping and the manholes were put in for the storm drain. The water will be brought up to the edge of the building soon. The well drillers will mobilize and will start hauling out materials and staking out the holes on 7-16-07. Sawatzke stated that Highway and Parks are taking turns watering the transplanted trees weekly. There aren’t any change orders. Martin proposed to the Committee that they research local, recently built, schools to inquire as to whether they hired a commissioning agent and their experience with commissioning. Martin discussed previous projects (including private sector) she has managed that have used commissioning services, specifically a project for 3M that had extensive and detailed commissioning meetings every week out side of the normal construction meetings. Buikema stated that 3M has special interest in energy efficiency hence the extensive commissioning. RECOMMENDATION: Review the Commissioning bids for further discussion at the 7-24-07 Owner’s Committee Meeting. (End of Owner’s Committee Minutes)

Dr. Janis Amatuzio, Medical Examiner, presented the 2006 Report of the Medical Examiner. She introduced Gary Alberts, the new Administrator for the Medical Examiner’s Office. The Statistical Summary for 2006 reflects 302 total deaths in Wright County (259-Natural, 24-Accident, 13-Suicide, 3-Homicide, 3-Undetermined). With regard to investigations, they are 55 cases ahead of where they were a year ago today. Their office is beginning to realize the growth being experienced in Wright County. Hospice deaths continue to increase due to the trend of moving those with terminal diseases out of the hospital and into hospice. Motor vehicle deaths decreased slightly to a total of 9 (11 in 2005) with the average age being 35. Amatuzio drew attention to the fact that 5 of the 9 deaths (56%) had blood alcohol present at the time of death and this did play a role in the crashes. Four of the five alcohol-related accidents had alcohol levels of 0.240 g/dL or greater. One death also involved marijuana. The people who died were excessively intoxicated which is something Amatuzio has not seen in years past. The male/female ratio was about 50/50. The general public still does not like to buckle up, with about half of those involved in motor vehicle deaths being unrestrained. Most motor vehicle crashes occur on dry roads and motorists driving at excessive speeds. Most crashes were on Interstate 94 in the Monticello area. Interstates are the safest roads to travel due to limited accesses. The most dangerous days to drive in 2006 were Wednesday and Sunday and most crashes occurred between 4:00 P.M.-8:00 P.M. Amatuzio felt this was due to more people on the road, fatigue, and the element of road rage. In 2006, there were 15 accidental deaths (non motor vehicle) compared with 20 in 2005. The deaths were of the following categories: 6 overdoses, 5 falls, 3 asphyxia, and 1 hypothermia, environmental exposure. Dr. Amatuzio referenced one accidental death involving an elderly person falling and reminded all adults to take calcium supplements. Another common accidental death are those who inadvertently overdose on medications.

There were 13 suicidal deaths in 2006 compared with 16 in 2005. National statistics reflect a 10:1 ratio of male to female. Wright County’s ratio was 9:4. The average age at death was 36 compared to 47 in 2005, which is the lowest in five years. Blood alcohol was involved with 7 cases (54%). There were 9 males and 4 females who committed suicide. There were 3 homicides. From a forensic standpoint, one involved a woman who died from injuries received in a 1983 assault. This was classified as a homicide as the injuries were significant. There were 3 undetermined deaths, which means there is no evidence that identifies the death as natural, accidental, homicide or suicidal. There were 175 cremation approvals. The Coroner=s Office is required to investigate the deaths of all persons whose bodies are to be cremated, dissected, or buried at sea. The slight increase in cremations is a trend being seen in all eight counties she works with. Jurisdiction is assumed on all accidental, homicidal and suicidal deaths and on apparent natural deaths of persons who have not seen their primary physician within 90 days of death, who die in the ER and were not personally known by the ER physician, or who are visiting from out of the area. There were 83 cases in 2006 compared to 84 in 2005. Jurisdiction was declined in 219 cases. This occurs when the scene investigation indicates no evidence of foul play, when the deceased has seen the primary physician within 90 days, and when the primary physician is willing to sign the death certificate. There were 48 autopsies in 2006 compared to 54 in 2005. Amatuzio spoke highly of the Wright County death investigators and of the excellent support and collaboration received from the Sheriff=s Department. In closing, she highlighted the significant issues including the excessive use of alcohol and the increase in suicides. She was not sure how to reach those using alcohol excessively but said a portion of the public has altered their behavior by driving sober. Mattson questioned whether follow up is completed to see if certain bars over serve patrons. Amatuzio said they have not looked at this but they have reviewed behavior. The majority of those involved are people drinking either in their own homes or at another private residence. This reflects positively on bars as it appears they are looking after their customers. Heeter asked whether they investigate all fatal crashes in Wright County. Amatuzio responded that all deaths which occur outside of a medical facility are investigated. This is completed over the phone for hospice, out of respect for the families involved and in the spirit of hospice. Amatuzio was thanked for her report.

A Ways & Means Committee Meeting was held on 7-11-07. At today’s County Board Meeting, Mattson moved to approve the minutes and recommendations, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0:

Law Enforcement Contract. A handout was distributed by the Sheriff Department reflecting information used to calculate a recommendation on City Law Enforcement Contract rates. The handout includes a 2007 budget comparison with other law enforcement agencies, the 2007 cost per deputy in Wright County, and contracting rates and percentage increases for Wright County cities since 1972. There are approximately 50 contract deputies or 65% of the Patrol Division. Sheriff Miller explained the rationale used to cover costs associated with contracts, including the deputy, relief factor, and associated department costs. The figures do include management for the positions. He felt the County was meeting the deputy cost to provide service through fine revenues (about 60% of $350,000) and the redundancy figure (about $500,000) for warrants, transports, communications and court security. Norman said the figures presented do not cover labor increase costs associated with the recent contract settlement, workers compensation, car insurance, and other insurance coverage. The County has an obligation when there is a settlement to calculate the Uniform Settlement Form. In 2008, the increase for LELS is $7.34% (wages, Medicaid, Police & Fire Fund). A large factor influencing this percentage is the new PERA increase and step increases. Labor costs related to the settlement have not been spread to departments. Dave Miller noted that the redundant figures are compiled on base wages for communication officers and transports and do not include vehicles. The figure could be much higher than $1.5 million. Norman projected that the cost of insurance alone would make up that difference. Workers Compensation will significantly increase next year. Liability insurance is not included either. Norman could request that MCIT calculate these costs. Sheriff Miller noted grant reimbursements cover a portion of overtime hours for the Sheriff Department and is not reflected in the overtime line item. When Wright County first authorized the Sheriff Department to contract with cities, Norman said a resolution was adopted reflecting full costs should be recouped. Norman’s recommendation was a 5% increase per year (2008-2009). Sheriff Miller suggested 2%, but Norman responded that the contract settlement was 2.75% (base salary). Sheriff Miller agreed that costs should be covered but noted they were not fully staffed last year. Recommendation: Set City Law Enforcement Contract rates at $54 for 2008 and $56 for 2009. (End of Ways & Means Committee Minutes)

Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, presented discussion on the liquor license for Boonedocks Saloon & Grill. The establishment’s owner, Kyle McBride, previously received a State fine issued to another business he co-owned. A letter from McBride indicates that in June he relinquished his position as co-owner of a business in South Haven. He allowed the new owner to operate under his liquor license. A liquor license violation occurred and McBride was unaware of it. Hiivala received notice from the State that the fine has now been paid. It was the State’s position that Boonedocks Saloon & Grill could operate. If approved by the Board, Hiivala said the original application and certificate will be resubmitted. The State will sign the certificate and the County will affix the official seal, making the license official. Today, McBride stated that his application reflects that he did not have any liquor violations. He filled it out in this manner as he was unaware of the violation. In response to Sawatzke, McBride said Boonedocks had been closed for two days (closed by the Sheriff Department). He went to the State on 7-13-07 and paid the fine. The State indicated the business could re-open so this happened on 7-13-07. Hiivala said the recommendation of the Auditor and Sheriff is to approve the liquor license. Mattson moved to approve the liquor license, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.

Russek said County Ditch 31 is in disrepair (approximately 2 miles) and requested authorization to obtain quotes on clean out. A meeting with benefited property owners on the Ditch would follow and possibly be held at the Woodland Township Hall. Russek said a lot of repair is needed and he estimated a cost of $100,000. Mattson moved to authorize Russek to obtain quotes from at least four vendors on the scope of the project. Follow up will occur with benefited property owners after the quotes are received. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke. Sawatzke suggested the use of sentence to service individuals for brush cleanout to potentially mitigate some of the costs. The cleanout request came from Yagers who own a large portion of land that the Ditch runs through. The motion carried 5-0.

Hiivala requested approval of an amended and restated Joint Powers Agreement between Minnesota Counties Computer Cooperative (MCCC) and Wright County. The Agreement was last signed in November, 1984. Some language changes were made. Brian Asleson, Chief Deputy Attorney, has reviewed and approved the changes. Sawatzke asked whether Lisa Meredith has always been the Executive Director of the MCCC. Hiivala confirmed this and said the maximum Wright County would pay would be $6,000. Sawatzke asked whether this was reflected in the Agreement. Hiivala said it is based upon the programs which are contracted. Hiivala was the Chair of the MCCC previously and is the voting delegate for Wright County. Denise McCalla, Auditor’s Office, and Bill Swing, IT Director, are members. Mattson referenced page 4, 1st paragraph, relating to potential changes to the budget and notification to member counties. Hiivala said an Annual Report is received from the MCCC. Norman suggested that the amendment and restated Joint Powers Agreement be forwarded to MCIT for review for insurance coverage purposes. He referenced Article 9 which states, in part, “…MCCC may purchase and maintain liability insurance…” Norman felt MCIT should review this to assure that member counties are protected while participating in the Joint Powers Agreement. Mattson moved to lay the Agreement over until a report is received from MCIT, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.

Hiivala distributed the State Demographer’s 2006 population estimates and a Wright County trend analysis of population estimates. The distribution of the Demographer’s estimates is the official release of the figures. Wright County cities and townships previously received the information and had until 6-27-07 to appeal the figures. No action was taken on this item.

The June Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines were distributed. Norman referenced Page 8, Budget 100, Line Item 5228, Wetland Conservation Act. Although $25,000 was budgeted as projected revenue for wetland conservation, this is not reflected in the report. The Water Management Grant line item reflects a total of $54,300 and Norman felt the two line items may have been combined. Hiivala referenced Page 8, Property Taxes, which reflects the collection of only 1%. A tax settlement will be in the July report. Heeter referenced Page 4, Auditor/Treasurer, Line Item 20, Miscellaneous Revenue and asked what the figures related to. Hiivala said this is part of the tax settlement for power lines and will be credited back. Mattson referred to a claim on Page 8, GRRL, which reflects a balance of $75,000 and asked whether that amount balanced out with expense by the end of the year. Hiivala said the GRRL must have received three payments in a six-month period but payments will not exceed the entire budgeted amount. Mattson moved to approve the June Revenue/Expenditure Guidelines, seconded by Eichelberg, carried 5-0.

On a motion by Heeter, second by Mattson, all voted to approve the claims as listed in the abstract, subject to audit.

Mark Nolan, Safety Director, said a re-appraisal of the Compost Facility was performed by MAXIMUS, Inc. from Northbrook, Illinois. MCIT uses this firm to appraise all buildings covered by the Trust with a value over $50,000. This issue was last discussed at a Committee Of The Whole Meeting. Nolan said Board approval would be required to move forward with the new appraised values. As of 1-1-07, the six buildings had a total value of $31,715,058 with a total County contribution of $43,713 ($1,000 deductible). The deductible was raised on all property and inland marine coverage effective 4-01-07. The value of the buildings remained the same but the contribution decreased to $37,652 ($5,000 deductible). At that time, MAXIMUS was contacted to reappraise the Compost Facility as a cold storage facility. The new value as a cold storage facility would be $5,422,420 with a County contribution of $6,445 ($5,000 deductible). If the County elects to proceed with the value as a cold storage facility, the County would receive a credit for 2007 of $18,568. The 2008 contribution would be $6,445 for six buildings. This would result in a $31,652 savings per year. MCIT would require a special endorsement in the coverage document with the following criteria:

• Buildings are valued as cold storage and not as a compost facility.

• The equipment in the buildings previously used for composting is not included in the coverage.

• The maximum amount reimbursed for a total loss would be $5,422,420

• After 2008, each building would be revalued using an index, as is all property covered by MCIT.

• If Wright County submits a claim and does not fix or rebuild, MCIT would pay an actual cash value rather than a functional replacement cost, which could be lower.

Next year’s guaranteed contribution would be $6,445 and the index would rise slightly each year thereafter. A full reappraisal will be completed every three years (next is 2010). Sawatzke moved to approve the recommendation to accept the reappraisal amounts and endorsement from MCIT for 2008, seconded by Mattson, carried 5-0. Nolan was commended on his effort.

Craig Hayes, Purchasing Agent, presented a $1,750.00 proposed change order for the West Parking Lot Project. The change order would remove the old apron, grade the entrance, and replace the apron (6” concrete). As originally designed, Otto Engineers suggested reuse of the residential driveway that existed. The contractor, Knife River, has suggested reconsideration as they don’t feel it is up to standard for a parking lot. The County Coordinator and Building Maintenance Supervisor concur with this recommendation. Mattson supported the request as the old entrance has quite a dip. Mattson moved to approve the change order, seconded by Sawatzke, carried 5-0.

Norman said the Leadership Team held their quarterly meeting 7-10-07 and two recommendations were being presented on behalf of that group.

Employee Recognition Program Change. Annually, employees are recognized at the Board Meeting for years of service. It is the recommendation of the Leadership Team that those employees being recognized for five years of service be recognized at a separate ceremony within their department. Those with ten years of service or more will be recognized at the County Board Meeting as has been done in the past. Employees recognized for five years of service will be invited to attend the reception as well. Eichelberg said one of the reasons this is being suggested is due to the low turnout at the Employee Recognition Ceremony of those in the five-year category. This was a unanimous recommendation of those present at the Leadership Team Meeting. Employees will still receive a certificate and a cup but it will be presented by their department. The employees will still be listed in the Program. Heeter said she would support this at the recommendation of the Department Heads. However, she did like involving those with five years of service in the Ceremony. Norman will request that departments notify the Board when their employees are being recognized so they may attend. Eichelberg moved to approve the suggested modification to the Employee Recognition Program. The motion was seconded by Sawatzke and carried 5-0.

Leadership Cohort Training Program. The Program is being co-sponsored by AMC, the Blandin Foundation, and the U of M Extension Service. The goal is to help build greater leadership capacity within staff of participating counties. A pilot project was tried in the western part of the State. They hope to duplicate the Program in Sherburne, Stearns, Benton and Wright Counties. Meeker and Morrison Counties may be asked to participate as well. Benton, Stearns and Sherburne have already agreed to participate. The Program involves eight employees from each of the Counties. Nine full-day sessions will be held with meeting sites rotated between Counties. Norman said the goal is to have the four Counties identify eight employees to become part of the Program. The employees would be those recognized as potential future supervisors or department heads. They are not looking at having department heads or supervisors enroll. This was discussed and supported by the Leadership Team. Norman has already received names from a couple of departments. The County cost would be $8,000 ($1,000/employee) and would be funded by the department involved. If the department cannot fully fund the cost, the remainder would be funded from Budget 100, Employee Enhancement Fund. The sessions will be conducted primarily by Blandin Foundation staff. Sawatzke asked if past participants have been contacted for input. Norman spoke with Jim Mulder, AMC, who said the pilot program was overwhelmingly supported. Norman said participation will be limited to the first eight names submitted. Sawatzke questioned the process, asking whether all interested employees should be considered or whether it should just be the first eight. Eichelberg stated that there is limited time for response and the Leadership Team was notified that the names would be considered on a first come, first serve basis. Eichelberg moved to approve participation in the Program, seconded by Heeter, carried 5-0.

A Closed Session will be held at 10:30 A.M. to discuss the Chouinard Property.